Technology

Dude, we work for the same company and I could have typed that in, and maybe I did. I wanted your experience with it, that’s why I asked you.

To me it's like sending the "let me google that for you" link to answer a question. It's just bad form. I don't want your whole reasoning trace man, i just want to know what you understand of it and maybe you'll catch some detail i'm missing or whatever. It's simple, i won't read LLM output, my colleagues know it and i get shit for it but no i am not digesting this material for you. Give me a 3 bullet-point version in your own words, the point is not just in the data exchange it's also to make sure you are aware of the answer and we have a common truth.

Or failing that, just give me the fucking prompt and at least i'll know if you understand the question.

I think this is the way. A certain number of times of “[coworker] wasn’t asked because they only respond with LLMs, so I just ask the LLMs directly. I am not sure what [coworker]’s expertise is anymore, I just don’t consult them” and I suspect coworker may in fact stop responding with LLMs.

Yep. Someone on another team at my work does this constantly.

Them: I'm having a problem with x

Me: Ok, do this

Them: But Copilot said...

Then why are you even asking me? Stop bothering me and wasting my time.

I 100% agree. To me it sort of feels like that old “Let me Google that for you” website. Like I wouldn’t have asked you something if I wanted you to just prompt ChatGPT. I want your informed opinion. But I guess informed opinions are hard to come by these days.

Too* dumb.

You're right to feel insulted. LLMs are verbose and unreliable often enough that you have to check any work that comes out (or be negligent).

So what's usually happening is someone is saving their time by spending yours. They saved the time normally needed to write a thoughtful reply by shifting the time and cognitive cost of reading and verifying to you, with AI as an excuse (often not without condescension, which is a type of "virtue signaling" driven by c-suite AI boosting). The slop output looks like "work product," but is neither - it took no work and is a facade of a "product" because it's unverified.

They are being selfish, and it is objectively an insulting act.

Put them on a list where any and every email they send you gets fed into GPT and replied to without you ever reading it, then to make sure they know that explain what's happening in the signature.

Some people seem to use it as an appeal to authority. This only works if you think ChatGPT is an authority on anything, though.

I have a work colleague who does the copy pasting. He asks me how I can tell when he's using AI to write git commit messages when there's a sudden spike in capitalised words, correct grammar, emojis, bullet points (and add in that the message sometimes has nothing to do with what's in the changes). It's infuriating when he uses it in a discussion. I thought he's lack in skills to make himself understood was bad, but arguing essentially with a chatbot is so much worse.

I find the exact opposite, as I use AI more, I can specifically tell when others use it and try to hide it more easily. People at work do it frequently.

Except people just straight up copy paste gpt output. At the very least people would say "I googled and got this result and that result." We've taken what was minimal work and made it minimaler.

Except information from Google was human made at least to some degree. With LLMs there is no guarantee

.... Buffalo buffalo buffles

Considering that despite going over lvl70, he decided with Catholic Priest instead of Saint,Warlock or Archmage, it should already be making you question his decision making ability.

"This idea was tested in a state-of-the-art simulation" - Jerry Smith